| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year. Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427 deficit, will update its view Wednesday. Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised. "This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits." Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204 billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated. More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago. Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%. "It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be emboldened." Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest" pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009. Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005 deficit may slip below 3% of GDP. For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news, and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and cementing his legacy as a tax cutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the naysayer's argument to rest. |
NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. shakes head in disbelief |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. shakes head in disbelief Disbelief? You should come to expect that out of our resident "King" |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:40:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. I'll bet that's what you do best, Fritz. Is that why you are single? Is that what happened to your first two, Harry? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. shakes head in disbelief Disbelief? You should come to expect that out of our resident "King" " Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. "--Albert Einstein |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:40:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. I'll bet that's what you do best, Fritz. Is that why you are single? Is that what happened to your first two, Harry? Harry has to be married to feel his life has meaning.....and then feels compelled to lie about her education to boost his own pathetic existence. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
wrote in message I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he ...... Not at all, bassy. He's alive and well and living with Elvis in a condo just south of Newnan. |
"ObiWan Kenobi" wrote in message Ever dollar spent by government, whether under a budget deficit or a balanced budget, is a dollar that's unavailable to the person who earned it. Simple solution----- abolish government. |
"NOYB" wrote in message news:WnVAe.21884 INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ..... The tide of economic growth ...... now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said ".....the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, It worked for the country under Kennedy, it worked for the country under Reagan, and now it is working once again for the country under Bush. Only two categories fail to see it -- the obtuse, and those who need to retain high taxes and a complicated tax code for punative nd social engineering purposes. |
Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics
obviously works, Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily proof that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge increase in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has* returned some $$ to the overall economy, after all. John Gaquin wrote: It worked for the country under Kennedy Maybe. ... it worked for the country under Reagan, Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before... .. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush. No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once thought. That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you only have cancer on one side.... ... Only two categories fail to see it -- the obtuse, and those who need to retain high taxes and a complicated tax code for punative nd social engineering purposes. Or those who are not quite convinced that Bush The Almighty is infallible & perfect, and have a smattering of acquaintance with the actual facts. DSK |
NOYB wrote: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year. Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427 deficit, will update its view Wednesday. Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised. "This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits." Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204 billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated. More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago. Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%. "It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be emboldened." Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest" pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009. Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005 deficit may slip below 3% of GDP. For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news, and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and cementing his legacy as a tax cutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the naysayer's argument to rest. Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen tonsils and the mumps? Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that? Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps. Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well! You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing and the Repub prez is signing. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily proof that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge increase in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has* returned some $$ to the overall economy, after all. John Gaquin wrote: It worked for the country under Kennedy Maybe. ... it worked for the country under Reagan, Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before... .. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush. No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once thought. That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you only have cancer on one side.... That *is* good news. Once it crosses the midline, the prognosis becomes extremely bleak. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year. Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427 deficit, will update its view Wednesday. Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised. "This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits." Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204 billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated. More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago. Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%. "It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be emboldened." Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest" pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009. Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005 deficit may slip below 3% of GDP. For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news, and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and cementing his legacy as a tax cutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the naysayer's argument to rest. Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen tonsils and the mumps? Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that? Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps. Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well! You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing and the Repub prez is signing. The increased spending is almost completely due to the war. Aside from that, discretionary spending is virtually no different under Bush than under most of the other administrations that preceded him. |
wrote in message You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. Now there's a bit of irony! I recall thirty-odd years of responsible folk of all stripes making the same suggestion to one Dem-controlled Congress after another, only to be brushed off with some condescending patter about meaningful and necessary social programs. Now the foe is on the other shoot. |
Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term..."
Oh Mr. Krause, I'm sure we will. BTW, congrats to whom ever won the Canon SLR Flash drawing. CHEERS! |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, Ever heard the old saying, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched'? If it does happen, it'll be good news... not necessarily proof that supply side economics works, but merely proof that the huge increase in gov't expenditure under the Bush Administration *has* returned some $$ to the overall economy, after all. John Gaquin wrote: It worked for the country under Kennedy Maybe. ... it worked for the country under Reagan, Actually, it *didn't* work under Reagan. Reagan left the country with a much bigger debt. However, he did grow the economy by increasing expenditure... hmmm now where have we seen that before... .. and now it is working once again for the country under Bush. No, it is *projected* that the deficit *might* not be as big as once thought. That's like proclaiming the good news that your doctor told you, you only have cancer on one side.... That *is* good news. Once it crosses the midline, the prognosis becomes extremely bleak. Another reason the liebrals are doomed to failure.........increased guvmint spending grew the economy BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year. Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427 deficit, will update its view Wednesday. Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised. "This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits." Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204 billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated. More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago. Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%. "It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be emboldened." Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest" pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009. Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005 deficit may slip below 3% of GDP. For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news, and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and cementing his legacy as a tax cutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the naysayer's argument to rest. Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen tonsils and the mumps? Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that? Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps. Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well! You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing and the Repub prez is signing. The increased spending is almost completely due to the war. Aside from that, discretionary spending is virtually no different under Bush than under most of the other administrations that preceded him. "The increased spending is almost completely due to the war." Yeah, no schidt. Avoiding for the moment any question about whether we would have had a war in the first place if certain parties hadn't insisted on it........ During wartime, you cut back on other expenses. Wars cost real money, in addition to precious and irreplaceable human lives. To adopt a policy of fighting the war "off the books" and spending as if it were peace time on everything else, cutting taxes and revving up govt. spending everywhere in sight (except social and environmental programs), is goofy accounting by any standard. While you break your arm patting your party on the back. consider that since the Iraq war is being fought "off budget", why does anybody believe the expenditures are even reflected in the current *budget* deficit? |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:19:34 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:
wrote in message You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. Now there's a bit of irony! I recall thirty-odd years of responsible folk of all stripes making the same suggestion to one Dem-controlled Congress after another, only to be brushed off with some condescending patter about meaningful and necessary social programs. Now the foe is on the other shoot. That's a myth. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html |
P. Fritz wrote:
Another reason the liebrals are doomed to failure.........increased guvmint spending grew the economy BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh, yeah, I forgot... any money spent by the gov't disappears... evaporates... is gone gone gone... money spent by the gov't does not pay wages, does not buy goods or services, and once spent, the money is not in other people's pockets to spend again on further wages, goods, services... my bad. DSK |
On 12 Jul 2005 17:45:58 -0700, " wrote:
NOYB wrote: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowing Quickly On Revenue Surge BY JED GRAHAM INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY So much for record budget deficits. The tide of economic growth and surging corporate and individual tax revenues are now expected to erase as much as 25% of the red ink the government was planning to expend this year. Three-quarters of the way through fiscal 2005, the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will come in well shy of $350 billion and may fall below $325 billion. The White House, which had forecast a record $427 deficit, will update its view Wednesday. Some see the better-than-expected federal revenues as evidence that President Bush's tax policy is working as advertised. "This is exactly what the White House said would happen," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "They said the tax cuts would stimulate productivity, fuel economic growth and lead to smaller deficits." Tax revenues through the first nine months of the fiscal year are up $204 billion, or 14.6%, from last year to $1.6 trillion, CBO estimated. More than one-fourth of that improvement has come from corporate income tax receipts, which are up $58 billion, or 40.8%, from a year ago. Individual income taxes are up $105 billion, or 17.6%, from last year. The payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs are up $34 billion, or 7%. "It's a dramatic story," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group. "Whether you believe in supply-side theory or not, supply-side-tax-cutting advocates are going to be emboldened." Valliere now expects the president to reach two years early his "modest" pledge of cutting the deficit in half as a share of GDP by 2009. Bush made the commitment during his bid for re-election at a time the White House was projecting a deficit of 4.5% of GDP, although the 2004 deficit ended up to be $412 billion, or 3.6% of GDP. CBO figures suggest the 2005 deficit may slip below 3% of GDP. For an administration that had to deflect attacks about being fiscally irresponsible in Bush's first term, the turn in the deficit is welcome news, and the stakes couldn't be any higher. Closing the deficit is critical to the president's goal of making his first-term tax cuts permanent and cementing his legacy as a tax cutter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Bush cut the tax rate, and tax revenues increased. Supply side economics obviously works, and the Laffer Curve is an accurate model of what happens when taxes are decreased. Hopefully the current data will put the naysayer's argument to rest. Doctor to patient: Remember last month when we told you that tests revealed you had diabetes, AIDS, throat cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, swollen tonsils and the mumps? Patient, (glumly): How could I ever forget that? Doctor: Well, I've got some good news for you! Your tonsils are no longer inflammed, and we think you are recovering from the mumps. Patient: Hallelujah! I'm well! You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money like a bunch of drunks. That's far more direct than wondering whether or not the tax cuts might stimulate the economy enough to begin covering some of the bad checks the Repub-majority congress are writing and the Repub prez is signing. Wow, nice spin Chuck! I was wondering how y'all would turn that into a negative. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
John H. wrote:
Wow, nice spin Chuck! I was wondering how y'all would turn that into a negative. Let's see now, what's happened he The huge projected deficit might not be as huge as once thought. The Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders have proclaimed that this is wonderful, fantastic news, all is rosy forever, and it *PROVES* that President Bush's economic policy (ie cut taxes, jack spending way way up) WORKS (just like it worked for Reagan, which it actually didn't). Others point out the fact that 1- the possibly decreased deficit is still huge, and that's bad... 2- it hasn't happened yet, nobody knows for sure if the deficit will be less than projected. You then accuse us of being negative. Golly gee, JohnH, if the facts are 'negative' then doesn't that say something about your anointed leader's policies right there? DSK |
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:40:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. I'll bet that's what you do best, Fritz. Is that why you are single? Is that what happened to your first two, Harry? One. And several children who are estranged from him because of the way he treated their mother. But shhhhh. This is the part of his life krause **never** talks about in all his gratuitous spewing of personal information. Krause is a typical insecure individual. His sense of self-worth and security is derived from the things he owns, important people he has seen or met, obsequious people, and the denigration of all others. Given the right circumstances, he'd turn into a pitiful blubbering mess. -- Charlie |
Harry,
Why did you feel it was necessary to lie about your degree from Yale and your wife's MD degree? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:40:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. I'll bet that's what you do best, Fritz. Is that why you are single? Is that what happened to your first two, Harry? Harry has to be married to feel his life has meaning.....and then feels compelled to lie about her education to boost his own pathetic existence. That's how you rationalize your hatred of women? Pathetic. So, was it your drinking or your bitch slapping or both that got you divorced? -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
"Real Name" wrote in message ... Harry, Why did you feel it was necessary to lie about your degree from Yale and your wife's MD degree? Harry is projecting again..............typical. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:40:47 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. I'll bet that's what you do best, Fritz. Is that why you are single? Is that what happened to your first two, Harry? Harry has to be married to feel his life has meaning.....and then feels compelled to lie about her education to boost his own pathetic existence. That's how you rationalize your hatred of women? Pathetic. So, was it your drinking or your bitch slapping or both that got you divorced? -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. It wouldn't be from a little pussy boy like you. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. So.....you think that it's prudent to apply what someone said about the economy 40+ years ago concerning the economy? The economy of the U.S. is nothing like it was then. Foreign trade, for one. Massive BushCo debt for another. Hell, let's just use some FDR quotes to live by! A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." Theres one that I think still applies. "A nation that destroys it's soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people." That one still works. "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." It would be nice to do that with Bush!! "If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace." Uh, oh, THAT isn't something Bush and his followers want to hear! "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Another thing Bush can't do. "Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country." Unless you're Bush..... "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." Uh, oh, Bush and lemmings don't want to hear THAT! "True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." Hmm, BushCo THINKS they are dictators! |
Tim wrote: BTW, congrats to whom ever won the Canon SLR Flash drawing. CHEERS! Maybe a raptor (you know, a bird of prey) got it. Oh, forgot, you don't know what they are.....sorry. |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:43:49 -0400, DSK wrote:
John H. wrote: Wow, nice spin Chuck! I was wondering how y'all would turn that into a negative. Let's see now, what's happened he The huge projected deficit might not be as huge as once thought. The Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders have proclaimed that this is wonderful, fantastic news, all is rosy forever, and it *PROVES* that President Bush's economic policy (ie cut taxes, jack spending way way up) WORKS (just like it worked for Reagan, which it actually didn't). Others point out the fact that 1- the possibly decreased deficit is still huge, and that's bad... 2- it hasn't happened yet, nobody knows for sure if the deficit will be less than projected. You then accuse us of being negative. Golly gee, JohnH, if the facts are 'negative' then doesn't that say something about your anointed leader's policies right there? DSK So the news was really *bad* news? Suppose the deficit evaporated overnight. Would that be *really* bad news? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:19:37 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
P. Fritz wrote: Would Viagra had saved your marriage, Fritz...or did tbe booze do it in? Which ruined yours, Harry. Which drove your kids away? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:36:23 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. It wouldn't be from a little pussy boy like you. Fritz wants to treat you the way he treated his ex-wife. Did you do that to your ex-wife, Harry? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:19:37 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: Would Viagra had saved your marriage, Fritz...or did tbe booze do it in? Which ruined yours, Harry. Which drove your kids away? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD You know, it is comical seeing harry follow kevin's footsteps........kevin tried the same lame tactic and it had the same effect ................zilch Poor pathetic harry, needs a wife to feel validated. Liebrals are sooooooooooo predictable |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:36:23 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Well what do you know! JFK was right when he said "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." I thought JFK was dead. I don't know how he would be able to comment on the economy of 2005. You really are an idiot Kevin......and you prove it here daily. Kevin is about due for another bitch slapping. It wouldn't be from a little pussy boy like you. Fritz wants to treat you the way he treated his ex-wife. Did you do that to your ex-wife, Harry? poor harry, what a sad sack to have to troll a boating NG for attention. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
The reason it hits home with Kevin and Harry is because it "hits home".
They are both boozer and losers who have to lie in rec.boats to boost their feeble egos. Harry said he graduated from Yale, Kevin immediately has to have graduated from UPenn. Two pees in a pod. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:19:37 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: Would Viagra had saved your marriage, Fritz...or did tbe booze do it in? Which ruined yours, Harry. Which drove your kids away? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD You know, it is comical seeing harry follow kevin's footsteps........kevin tried the same lame tactic and it had the same effect ................zilch Poor pathetic harry, needs a wife to feel validated. Liebrals are sooooooooooo predictable |
"Real Name" wrote in message ... The reason it hits home with Kevin and Harry is because it "hits home". They are both boozer and losers who have to lie in rec.boats to boost their feeble egos. Harry said he graduated from Yale, Kevin immediately has to have graduated from UPenn. I thought it was Penn Tech, home of the nittnany jackets.....or would it be the yellow lions? The "Yale" harry attended http://www.yale.k12.mi.us/yes/ Two pees in a pod. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:19:37 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: Would Viagra had saved your marriage, Fritz...or did tbe booze do it in? Which ruined yours, Harry. Which drove your kids away? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD You know, it is comical seeing harry follow kevin's footsteps........kevin tried the same lame tactic and it had the same effect ................zilch Poor pathetic harry, needs a wife to feel validated. Liebrals are sooooooooooo predictable |
Harry,
Help me out, what was the deal with your wife's picture? You posted someone else's picture and said it was your wife. Someone from rec.boats meet you and your wife and said, hey that isn't the person in your picture. You immediately pulled your wife's picture from the web site. I wish I could remember the details, but I am sure you do. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: The reason it hits home with Kevin and Harry Bite me. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
Harry,
When you were younger what hard drugs did you use? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: The reason it hits home with Kevin and Harry Bite me. -- Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term. |
That might be the one. I do believe he is from the New Haven area.
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Real Name" wrote in message ... The reason it hits home with Kevin and Harry is because it "hits home". They are both boozer and losers who have to lie in rec.boats to boost their feeble egos. Harry said he graduated from Yale, Kevin immediately has to have graduated from UPenn. I thought it was Penn Tech, home of the nittnany jackets.....or would it be the yellow lions? The "Yale" harry attended http://www.yale.k12.mi.us/yes/ Two pees in a pod. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:19:37 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: P. Fritz wrote: Would Viagra had saved your marriage, Fritz...or did tbe booze do it in? Which ruined yours, Harry. Which drove your kids away? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD You know, it is comical seeing harry follow kevin's footsteps........kevin tried the same lame tactic and it had the same effect ................zilch Poor pathetic harry, needs a wife to feel validated. Liebrals are sooooooooooo predictable |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com